They've Done The Exact Same Stories For the Last 15 Years

[romanstylesiii]

Nearly all title matches are either 1 or 2, or a combo of both

1. Cost champion non-title match, face at PPV. 

2. Beat champion in non-title match, meet at the next PPV

THINK OF SOMETHING NEW VINCE

[Mister Pigwell]

The very concept of non title matches when there isn't some specific story reason why the title isn't on the line drives me nuts.

["Evil Brood" Jackson Vanik]

This is the same argument I've had for years with people.

Me: God, I don't know why they keep beating this guy, he needs some wins.
Fan: Come on, you know this is what they do right before someone gets a push!
Me: ...even if you're right...you know that's still a bad thing right?

[Dean-o]

Champions consistently losing in non-title matches is my biggest issue with WWE today. It’s the exact same routine every single time, year after year. The belts are completely meaningless.

What is so hard about building a division to form a #1 contender?

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

WWE's always had a variety of storylines up and down the card in every era. But I specifically hate, haaaate the "champion repeatedly loses in non-title matches" angle. They devalue both the actual belt and the champions holding it.

[thehottag]

I'm old & grizzled enpugh to remember the whole uproar when Vince Russo described titles as 'props'. People lost their marbles when this was first uttered, because to them, championships were supposed to be a massive deal.

Thing is though, Russo was right - they are props. Just like Austin's vest is a prop, just like Lawler's crown is a prop. But the difference is, they're the main props. In the world of wrestling, they're the reason everyone comes to work. Without them, it's just a bunch of people fighting for no real reason.

In WWE, 'x becomes champion' seems to be the last line written in their stories. Person beats champion in non-title match to get the shot, & then wins the belt. But then what? They don't seem to have plans beyond that. So the champion only exists to lose so they can set up more challengers for the title. This, in turn, makes the championship seem unimportant, defeating the purpose of wanting to win it.

Champs are chumps, basically.

[tankisfreemason]

It amazes me that WWE still follows the championship pattern on most shows, where if all the undercard titles change, the main event title won’t, and vice versa.

[111111]

Remember when they did the exact same ending to summerslam in 2011 and 2013?

[clifford]

Jun 8, 2020 22:09:22 GMT -5 Mister Pigwell said:

The very concept of non title matches when there isn't some specific story reason why the title isn't on the line drives me nuts.

OMG , THIS.

Your champion should only ever be in one-on-one matches with their championship on the line, or have a very specific and explained reason when it is not the case.

[Wieners=$$$]

VINCE: Well, we haven't had a "Bodyslam Challenge" in a couple decades. What's Hogan up to?

[eJm]

Jun 8, 2020 22:09:22 GMT -5 Mister Pigwell said:

The very concept of non title matches when there isn't some specific story reason why the title isn't on the line drives me nuts.

Like, I swear they used to explain it in the form of, like, grudge matches or wanting to earn a shot to prove themselves or even just went about and did it as a title match on free TV anyway and used that to build to other stories but...yeah...

[Deleted]

For the amount of people they have on creative, you would think they'd come up with an interesting idea or two.

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

Jun 9, 2020 2:22:11 GMT -5 thehottag said:

I'm old & grizzled enpugh to remember the whole uproar when Vince Russo described titles as 'props'. People lost their marbles when this was first uttered, because to them, championships were supposed to be a massive deal.

Thing is though, Russo was right - they are props. Just like Austin's vest is a prop, just like Lawler's crown is a prop. But the difference is, they're the main props. In the world of wrestling, they're the reason everyone comes to work. Without them, it's just a bunch of people fighting for no real reason.

In WWE, 'x becomes champion' seems to be the last line written in their stories. Person beats champion in non-title match to get the shot, & then wins the belt. But then what? They don't seem to have plans beyond that. So the champion only exists to lose so they can set up more challengers for the title. This, in turn, makes the championship seem unimportant, defeating the purpose of wanting to win it.

Champs are chumps, basically.

Not in other companies. Outside of WWE, the champions are treated as standard-bearers. Those champs actually draw, because fans don't want to back someone who's constantly counting the lights even though they have a belt that says they're the best.

Just makes me think about how wonderfully handled that Kazuchika Okada two-year run was. Fans didn't get sick of it because not only were the matches great, Okada's challengers were built up strongly before they faced him, and they took him to the limit. So even though he'd win, he was getting worn down in the storyline, and Omega still had to pull out all the stops to beat Okada for the belt. The few losses Okada had were either a rare upset, or his partner getting pinned in a multi-man match.

There's no reason WWE can't do that with their champions. It'll work.

[This Player Hating Mothman]

Jun 9, 2020 8:10:21 GMT -5 @babaganoush said:

For the amount of people they have on creative, you would think they'd come up with an interesting idea or two.

From what we hear from peoplewho weer on creative, they did. Everything gets tossed out or turned down by Vince because he's old and tired and lazy, and all he wants is to keep making the same show. He falls into grooves that become easy to autopilot through and then calls it a day.

[Deleted]

Jun 8, 2020 22:13:48 GMT -5 "Evil Brood" Jackson Vanik said:

This is the same argument I've had for years with people.

Me: God, I don't know why they keep beating this guy, he needs some wins.
Fan: Come on, you know this is what they do right before someone gets a push!
Me: ...even if you're right...you know that's still a bad thing right?

You asked God a question, and FAN answered.

Are we God?

[camphor #BLM]

Jun 9, 2020 8:48:03 GMT -5 @therealoblivion said:

Jun 8, 2020 22:13:48 GMT -5 "Evil Brood" Jackson Vanik said:

This is the same argument I've had for years with people.

Me: God, I don't know why they keep beating this guy, he needs some wins.
Fan: Come on, you know this is what they do right before someone gets a push!
Me: ...even if you're right...you know that's still a bad thing right?

You asked God a question, and FAN answered.

Are we God?

[Deleted]

Jun 9, 2020 8:44:49 GMT -5 This Player Hating Mothman said:

Jun 9, 2020 8:10:21 GMT -5 @babaganoush said:

For the amount of people they have on creative, you would think they'd come up with an interesting idea or two.

From what we hear from peoplewho weer on creative, they did. Everything gets tossed out or turned down by Vince because he's old and tired and lazy, and all he wants is to keep making the same show. He falls into grooves that become easy to autopilot through and then calls it a day.

I've heard the opposite at times.

Depends who you listen to. Either way, the ideas are not getting through and it's ridiculous.

[Venti]

WWE's main storylines to me have felt like WWE Universe mode in the games on autopilot. Since around I'd say when Punk left at least.

[4real]

“[Insert Wrestler Name here] has pinned the Champion!” Might be my least favourite WWE trope. It’s been done so much it’s lost all meaning.

[Bang Bang Bart]

I don’t think other promotions fall back on the “_______ has pinned The Champion” trope as much as WWE does.